I see you have gone ahead with your personal interpretation of footway link without waiting for comment. Definitionally ways are zero width and adjacent ways should connect directly to the centerline. Road “areas” are determined by width, lanes, etc. Splitting the adjacent way when it reaches the visual area of a road is not necessary and does nothing but break network hierarchy and hurt navigation hints.

The idea of a footway changing within the area of a way is a flawed concept. For the same reason as driveways connecting to a main road aren’t connected via “link”.

Not only that but you are hijacking the original intention of what link is used for. It has nothing to do with crossings. Usage of link should be limited to only very special edge cases of which this doesn’t fall under any examples on the wiki. Please refer the wiki and do not add them back unless you understand.

Changeset reverted by changeset/175691711

Next time just think for a second before removing things. Just because the building isn't visible on the imagery doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your title should have been "Removed parking lots and under construction building"...

When modifying road geometry fix the bus route. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-117.86043&lat=33.67035&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes

I think I see the issue. I've fixed it with changeset/174173496

Let me know if you need anything else.

Do you still require help with this?

Thanks for the changeset! However, make sure you don't glue the parking lot area to the perimeter of the paths. It makes future editing difficult. I've gone ahead and fixed it with changeset #174172943

In retrospect it appears that your change was made hours before I uploaded my changeset. JOSM gave me no conflict resolution and thus causing the discrepancy.

Please check relations when editing

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-117.90600&lat=33.79135&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes

Project information: osm.wiki/Orange_County,_California/OCTA

Updated 19 existing PTv2 routes to match latest August service change. Modified several train/bus transportation centers. Modified dozens of bus stop positions.

Is construction here completed? If so the tags for buildings, roads, and footpaths should probably be updated to no longer be tagged with construction

Please make sure that when road geometry is modified that the PTv2 routes are maintained.

Thank you.

QA tool: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-117.86285&lat=33.83573&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard

Thanks for your concern DwarfNebula_ but I’m the one who spearheaded the “new” amenity=towing_service to begin with. Just a few weeks ago world wide usage of it was 1. I got it up to about 60 by hand. Now that the consensus is to drop “_service” I’ll just do that because every instance of it was something I previously modified and verified.

did you even look? way/1214074604

Sorry dude just editing in this area and I saw how terrible those commercial building traces are. Honestly you shouldn't have even imported them

Looks like you accidently set the area as a building. I've fixed it for you: changeset/165396136

osm.wiki/JOSM

I saw you made multiple edits to add to this relation. For big relations I highly recommend you check out JOSM! It makes relation editing very easy and quick.